Institutional Economics: From Basic Concepts to Contemporary Contradictions
( Pp. 176-183)

The purpose of this study is to analyze the evolution and current state of institutional economics, to clarify its subject area, and to identify relevant problems. As a result, it was shown that modern institutional economics is one of the most productive and contradictory scientific fields. On the one hand, by combining the methods of various social sciences, it has offered effective tools for the solution of certain problems, has extended the economic approach to many spheres of life, has promoted the coordination of contradictory economic interests. It took into account the achievements of normative, ethical, informational, evolutionary, game, transactional, contractual and organizational approaches. On the other hand, due to the increased availability of data and the use of computational methods, institutional economics has been enriched by results in the areas of institutional diversity, institutional change, the study of the impact of institutional quality on inequality problems, and the role of individual economic actors. However, the degree of rationality of individual behavior, the impact of economic institutions on increasing imbalances in the distribution of wealth and power, the implementation of mechanisms of institutional change, and the transplantation of effective economic institutions remain debatable.

Andrei M.K., (2023), INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS: FROM BASIC CONCEPTS TO CONTEMPORARY CONTRADICTIONS. Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 2 => 176-183.

Auzan A.A., Bakhtigaraeva A.I., Bryzgalin V.A. Development of Russia’s creative economy in the context of modern challenges. Journal of the New Economic Association. 2022. 2 (54), 213–220. (in Russian)
Auzan A.A. Institutional Economics for Dummies. Moscow: Fashion Press, 2011. 127 р. (in Russian)
Bondarenko A.V., Mizhareva N.V., Nigmatullina I.V. Moral economy: economic and philosophical analysis of the concept // Discussion. 2022. №. 3 (112). 26–34. (in Russian)
Bourdieu P. Social Space and Symbolic Power // Bourdieu P. Beginnings. M.: Socio-Logos, 1994. рр. 181–207. (in Russian)
Veblen T. Theory of the Idle Class. Moscow: Progress, 1984. 368 p. (in Russian)
Vlasov M.V., Veretennikova A.Yu. The content of the modern economic institute // Journal of Economic Theory. 2011. №. 4. pp. 33–45. (in Russian)
Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. Moscow: AST:CORPUS, 2013. 512 p. (in Russian)
Kalyuzhnova N.Ya. Ekonomika mistrustirovaniya (institute of trust and its role in the competitiveness of regions) // Ekonomika regiona. 2014. №. 1. pp. 56–65. (in Russian)
Kirdina S.G. Institutional matrices: macrosociological explanatory hypothesis // Sotsis. 2001. №2. pp. 13–23. (in Russian)
Kleiner G.B. et al. Peculiarities of the Formation of Economic Institutions in Russia // Economics and Mathematical Methods. 2003. 39. №. 3. pp. 3–18. (in Russian)
Maracha V.G. Institution, Reflexion and Trust in the Context of the Question of the Factors of Social Development // Reflexive Processes and Management. 2006. 6. № 2. pp. 31–40. (in Russian)
Minakova I.V. Features of behavior of economic subjects in different types of contractual relations: neoinstitutional approach // Proceedings of Southwestern State University. 2012. №. 2-2 (41). pp. 29–34. (in Russian)
Pliskevich N.M. Institutional scars in «frontier» societies and the evolution of human potential (part 1: institutional scars) // Voprosy teoreticheskoy ekonomiki. 2022. №. 3. pp. 130–143. (in Russian)
Teveno L. Rationality or social norms: the overcome contradiction? // Economic Sociology. 2001. 2. № 1. pp 88–122. (in Russian)
Tumanyan Y.R. Mechanism of coordination and realization of economic interests as a way to achieve macroeconomic equilibrium // Economics: yesterday, today, tomorrow. 2022. № 9а. pp. 59–65. (in Russian)
Khudorukov A. The main trends in the modern economic theory of the West (on the material of the lectures of Nobel laureates in economics) // Vestnik of Moscow University. Series 6. Economics. 2007. №. 4. pp. 52–86. (in Russian)
Shastitko A.E. Methodological Status of New Institutional Economic Theory // Journal of Economic Theory. 2013. №. 4. pp. 36–47. (in Russian)
Acemoglu D., Robinson J. Non-Modernization: Power–Culture Trajectories and the Dynamics of Political Institutions //Annual Review of Political Science. 2022. 25. pp. 323–339.
Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A., Torvik R. Why do voters dismantle checks and balances? // Review of Economic Studies. 2013. 80. №. 3. pp. 845–875.
Autor D. et al. Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2020. Vol. 135. Issue 2. May. pp. 645–709.
Battilana J. & Lee M. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing // Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals. 2014. 8:1, pp. 397–441.
Baumgartner F.R. and Jones B.D. Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems // The Journal of Politics. vol. 53, No. 4. 1991. pp. 1044–74.
Becker G.S. A theory of marriage: Part I // Journal of Political economy. 1973. V. 81. №. 4. pp. 813–846. https://doi.org/10.1086/260287
Benmelech E. et. al. Private and Social Returns to R&D: Drug Development and Demographics // American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings. 2021. 111: pp. 336–340.
Bertrand M. et al. The cost of political connections //Review of Finance. 2018. 22. №. 3. pp. 849–876.
Besley T., Reynal-Querol M. The logic of hereditary rule: theory and evidence // Journal of Economic Growth. 2017. 22. pp. 123–144.
Brynjolfsson E. et al. What Can Machines Learn, and What Does It Mean for Occupations and the Economy? // AEA Papers and Proceedings. 2018.108: pp. 43–47.
Campbell J.L. Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility // The Academy of Management Review. 2007. 32(3), рр. 946–967.
Commons J.R. Institutional Economics // The American Economic Review. 1931. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 648–657. №. 9-1. P. 59–65.
Conrad C.A. Business ethics—a philosophical and behavioral approach. Springer Nature, 2022. 462 р.
Eggertsson T. State reforms and the theory of institutional policy //Brazilian Journal of Political Economy. 2022. V. 19. pp. 291–306.
Fligstein N. and McAdam D.A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 238 p.
Fukuyama F. The Future of Platform Power: Solving for a Moving Target // Journal of Democracy. 2021. vol. 32, 3, July, pp. 173–177.
Glaeser E.L. et al. Learning from deregulation: The asymmetric impact of lockdown and reopening on risky behavior during COVID‐19 // Journal of Regional Science. 2021. 61. №. 4. pp. 696–709.
Grafstein R. Institutional realism: the social and political constraints on rational actors. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. 244 р.
Kaufman B. G. et al. Impact of accountable care organizations on utilization, care, and outcomes: a systematic review // Medical Care Research and Review. 2019. 76. №. 3. pp. 255–290.
Kramarz F., Nimier‐David E., Delemotte T. Inequality and earnings dynamics in France: National policies and local consequences // Quantitative Economics. 2022. 13. №. 4. pp. 1527–1591.
Kroon A., Van der Meer T., & Vliegenthart R. Beyond Counting Words: Assessing Performance of Dictionaries, Supervised Machine Learning, and Embeddings in Topic and Frame Classification // Computational Communication Research. 2022. 4(2), pp. 528–570.

institutional economics, transaction costs, institutional change, communication processes, economic interests, institutional diversity..